George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Hansard source

I am sorry, Mr Deputy President; you correct me quite rightly. Through you, Mr Deputy President: Senator Carr, as a former minister in the portfolio yourself, you should know that decisions of the kind which are being inquired into by these questions are administrative decisions; they are not ministerial decisions. Of course, ultimately, under the principles of responsible government and section 64 of the Constitution, the minister must take ultimate responsibility for them. Nevertheless, the decisions are administrative and managerial decisions—not Mr Pyne's decisions and, certainly, not the decisions of Senator Sinodinos, who represents Mr Pyne in this chamber.

So what are the decisions about to which the questions were directed? Through you, Mr Deputy President: Senator Carr, you will appreciate that this is not an area in which I have ever been either the minister or the shadow minister. As I understand it, the decisions were in relation to the climate science area of the CSIRO. I have followed this debate, Senator Carr. I have followed it, in particular, through what I have always found to be the very illuminating contributions of my friend Senator Ian Macdonald, who makes the point, time and again, that there is an inconsistency in the Labor Party's position on this matter. On the one hand, times beyond number and for years on end, we have heard you and Senator Penny Wong and others say that, in relation to climate science, 'the science is settled'. That has been your constant refrain; it has been your mantra; it has been in pectore your most cherished belief that the science is settled. Yet you come into this chamber and condemn the government for making a decision which apparently acknowledges a fact that you have for so long asserted as an article of faith—that the science is settled.

Senator Siewert interjecting—

Senator Siewert, I will take that interjection. I am not embarking on this debate myself; I am simply challenging the illogic of the proposition being advanced by the Labor Party. On the one hand they say the science is settled but on the other hand they say it is a disgraceful thing that we should make adjustments to our premier public sector scientific research agency that would reflect the 'fact' that 'the science is settled'. For heaven's sake, Senator Carr—through you Mr Deputy President—if the science is settled, why do we need research scientists to continue inquiring into the settled science? Wouldn't it be a much more useful allocation of taxpayers' money, and research capacity within CSIRO, for CSIRO to allocate its resources to an area where the science is not settled? Wouldn't it, Senator Carr?

Senator Carr, you are the one who says the science settled. I do not. I am aware that there are a number of views about the two questions of the nature and the causes of climate change. It does not seem to me that the science is settled at all. I am not a scientist—I am agnostic, really, on that question—but I can follow a logical argument. It seems to me that if you are the party, the senator and the advocate who says the science is settled, it hardly lies in your mouth to criticise the government, the CSIRO or those who manage and administer its resources for allocating their resources to reflect a fact that you yourself assert. That is the falseness of your position, Senator Carr.

You put all these questions on notice to Senator Sinodinos, representing Minister Pyne. You come into the chamber today and hold us up with a debate about why it should be that these questions are 19 days late, when you have acknowledged yourself, through your interjection, that the answers to the questions are imminently to be provided. Senator Carr, if you are concerned about the misallocation of resources, as you allege, within the CSIRO, if that is a matter of such beseeching concern to you, why is it that you are putting the CSIRO, and those who administer it, to all the cost and trouble of seeking out answers to questions that you could just as easily have put in estimates, that you could just as easily have asked in the chamber and, frankly, that you could just as easily have inquired of the officers yourself? But, no, rather than do that, you invoke this elaborate parliamentary procedure, forcing the CSIRO—which has much better things to do than dance at your whim, Senator Carr—to spend so much time and waste so much money pursuing answers to pointless questions. And yet, somehow, this is the socialist dream of appropriate resource allocation. And if anyone was going to dream the socialist dream, Senator Carr, I guess it would be you.

There is not much more, I feel, I can contribute to this discussion than to point out that this entire exercise has been unnecessary. It has been entirely unnecessary. The information you are seeking is information in relation to a decision that you criticise in a manner which is completely at variance from the policy position you take. The people you criticised for making the decision, Mr Pyne and Senator Sinodinos, were not the decision makers. The delinquency of which you complain—namely, the lateness in the provision of the answers to the question—is an alleged delinquency which, by your own admission in interjection, is imminently to be corrected because you tell us that the CSIRO are about to provide the answers to the department. The procedure you have invoked this afternoon, the procedure under standing order 74(5)(b), is utterly unnecessary for you to achieve any appropriate line of parliamentary inquiry or any legitimate forensic end. So why do you tax us so, Senator Carr? Why do you delay us so?

What I can tell you, Senator Carr—and let me close on this, because I see that my time is fast running out to make this contribution to the debate—is that you will get your answers to the questions, as Senator Sinodinos has assured you. And, when you get the answers to the questions, I am sure you will find that those at the CSIRO who have provided those answers will have done so in a thorough, honest and conscientious way. All the time that they have diverted from their scientific research—the important research work they should be undertaking—to answer your unnecessary and meddlesome questions is time that could be much—

Senator Kim Carr interjecting—

You laugh, Senator Carr. You are the one who brought on this unnecessary debate. You are the one who brought this entirely unnecessary debate before the chamber. I am simply pointing out to you that it was an unnecessary and inappropriate use of the procedure. Mr President, you chair the Senate procedure committee. Perhaps, one thing the Senate procedure committee could do in the future is have a look at the appropriate scope of subparagraph (5) of standing order 74. This is an open-ended debate. This could go all day this debate you have inflicted upon us, Senator Carr, in order to achieve an end that could have been achieved by a telephone call. Yet you invoke this very recondite procedure in order to find out answers that you probably already know the answer to. You waste people's time with meddlesome and unnecessary questions and you announce to the Senate, having initiated this unnecessary debate, that the answers are imminent in any event. Senator Carr, why have you inflicted this on the Senate on the last sitting day of the week? Possibly the second last sitting week of this parliament is being detained by you, Senator Carr, by invoking this procedure entirely unnecessarily. Senator Carr—and I see my friend Senator Claire Moore sitting there; as whip, she is no doubt part of the tactics committee of the Labor Party—I wonder whether you might think again about whether there is a more efficient use of the Senate's time than to invoke this procedure in pursuing answers.